I've been meaning to try a panoramic shot for ages and am reasonably pleased with how this has turned out. It was created from seven originals taken at 17mm, using Stitcher. This does a much better job than Photoshop's 'photomerge' function, which is ok for shots with no distortion, but doesn't do a great job with wide angle shots; i.e. there's too much distortion.

Anyway, I'm not entirely convinced that I got the composition right – I probably should have shot the sequence in portrait rather than landscape format, and I think it needs a bit more space on the right – but other than that I think it's probably ok. Let me know what you think.

Oh, and if you're interested, there's a larger version of this image here:

.../archives/caught_in_the_middle.php

I've been struggling for inspiration recently, so rather than attempt something new I revisited one of my favourite haunts today – the pier at St. Annes.

This is the third and final shot in this small series, and as you can see, it's taken from somewhat further away than the other two. Actually, up until getting the 5D this shot wouldn't have been possible as it's shot at 17mm and the remainder of the pier (visible on the right hand side of this shot is at my back; i.e. with the 1.6 crop on the 20D it wouldn't appear to be quite so far away.

As for the three as a whole, I think the first is definitely my favourite, with this one running a reasonably close second. Yesterday's, on the other hand, had many elements that I liked – the toning, the detail, and so on – but the shot as a whole didn't seem to work quite as well as this one and the first one.

As always (though I'm sure you get fed up with me saying this), I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

First of all, thanks for all the comments on yesterday's shot, and for your suggestions regarding beaches and pebbles. I'll check these out over the next day or so and will let you know.

One that looks promising is this one – smooth pebbles, variation in colour, and so on – but it's a bit of a trek from here. Actually, and while I don't think I'm in any danger of becoming a closet geologist, I have found this research quite interesting, not least because the pebbles around the UK vary quite substantially from place to place. In Wales they're grey and smooth, along a fair bit of the south coast they're not quite as uniformly smooth and they're mostly shades of red, brown and yellow, while in Scotland there's more variation in colour ... and so on. I'm simplifying, but you get the idea. Anyway, I'm sure we'll find somewhere suitable soon.

Anyway, back to this image ...

It was processed in much the same way as yesterday's, i.e. it's a combination of three originals shot at different exposures, and while it isn't quite as dramatic as yesterday's I am pleased with the way it turned out.

As always, please let me know what you think.

Oh, and there's a higher res' version here. I've put this one up as a relatively small image as I didn't think it suited being scrolled on smaller screens.

It's been a while since I ventured down to St. Annes to shoot the pier so ventured down this morning, and this is the first of three shots I'll be putting up from the trip.

My intention was to shoot some HDR shots, but when I tried to process them with Photomatix Pro I wasn't especially happy with any of them. So, instead, all three of this small set are produced by overlaying and masking a set of originals shot at varying exposures. This one is made up of four originals, tomorrow's two, and the final one, which I'll put up on Friday, is constructed from three originals.

Oh, and given that these are produced from multiple shots I won't be putting up the EXIF data. Suffice to say that I bracketed widely (from around 1/20 to 1/4000) and this one and Friday's at f/16.0 and tomorrow's at f/8.0.

On a totally different topic, and if you're based in the UK: I need your help. I've been approached about a commission, which on the face of it sounds quite simple – I need one shot of a beach with smooth pebbles that are reasonably large. And that's it; pebbles in the foreground, stretching out towards the sea and the horizon, and nothing else.

'What complicates things though is that the shot has to be perfect, it has to be the ultimate pebble/beach shot. And that would be ok if we had the 'ultimate pebble beach' at either Blackpool, St. Anne's, or Fleetwood, ... but we don't. So, if any of you could recommend a beach, preferably in the North West of England, though anywhere in the UK would do, I'd be extremely grateful. Oh, and if you happen to have a shot of the pebbles/beach you're recommending I'd be even more grateful.

Often, when I put some up that was taken ages ago, I feel almost obligated to apologise for having nothing contemporary to post, but on this occasion I'm not too worried about it as I'm pleased with this one. It's a shot of John, taken in early 2005, and I must have processed this one at least a dozen times (and not been happy with the result). Anyway, I'm happy with this version.

My aplogies, but this is another shot from last summer. I know I should be shooting some new material, but I feel as though the life has been sucked out of me this past week or so. And I've had enough of winter now: I need warmth, sun, time and just some general rest and relaxation. On which disjointed note I'm going to go hibernate until May ;-)

Here's the third and final image in this small series, and despite the rather 'cluttered' feel I think this may be my favourite of the three.

On another matter: if you've experienced any problems with chromasia over the last few days (500 Internal Server errors when posting comments, slow access times, and so on): I am aware of this and hope to get it resolved as soon as possible.

Update: I once had a discussion with another photoblogger who told me that he didn't have comments on his site because he wasn't interested in critique, his site was simply about what he wanted to say to his viewers, not vice versa. Anyway, I guess my view has always been that I need critique, that it's one way of moving forward. All of which is a long way of saying that I've re-edited this image following a number of the early comments (with which, on reflection, I agree). The original, if you're interested, is here:

.../archives/fe2o3_3.php

Let me know how you think they compare. Oh, and I did try a reworked monochromatic version, but couldn't get it right.

Ok, here's the second of my latest 'rusty bits of St. Anne's Pier' series. Of the three this is probably the most conventional, but I like the richness of the rust so didn't want to convert it to a toned image or play around with the colours. Tomorrow's though, by way of contrast, is a toned black and white, and in some ways is probably my favourite of the three.

Oh, and this is my 600th entry. In the scale of things I guess that it's probably not too significant a milestone – it's a long way till I reach 1000 entries – but it's a satisfying feeling nonetheless. That said, it's a rather poor effort compared to yours: as I write this you're posted 13,472 comments and have written 522,695 words :-)

And finally: it seems as though I may be having some server problems – specifically '500 Internal Server' errors. Could you if you have any trouble when you leave your comment?

John and I spent a little over an hour today photographing my favourite structure and this is one of three shots that I'm happy with (though don't know which I prefer). I'll put the other two up over the weekend.

Update: the red and white dots – a couple of people wandering in the distance – have gone. They didn't add anything to the shot so I cloned them out.

Update #2: hmmm, seems my chemistry isn't up to much ;-) I've renamed this entry (from FeO2) as per the suggestions in the comments.

From the vantage point of yesterday's shot: turn 90 degrees to the right and wait about an hour and a half. This is the companion shot to touchdown #1, and I much prefer this one.

Quick update: A couple of people have asked about the (monochromatic) toning on this image but the image wasn't toned. What you see here is a white-balance corrected image. I forget exactly which bit of the image I used as a white/grey point but I didn't do anything else to the colour of this shot. Also, the exposure, despite being five minutes plus, was relatively easy to set; i.e. this would have only been a 20 second exposure at f/4.0. In other words, I just metered at maximum aperture then adjusted the exposure time for f/16. Each stop you close the aperture doubles the exposure time: f/5.6 = 40s, f/8.0 = 80s, and so on.

This is the last shot in this series and while the previous five were taken on the 29th April with John, this one was taken the following night with Paul (not long before this shot). And it should be obvious from the time it was taken, but this isn't a sunset.

Oh, and in recognition of the fact that this is undoubtedly one of my favourite structures, I've set up a new category, which can be viewed as either a category (which includes the text of the entry) or a gallery (which is just the medium sized thumbnails).

And finally, and I don't know why I'm asking this as I'm not sure I can answer it, which one is your favourite of the six? For me, I think it might be number 5, closely followed/equalled by numbers three and one, but I'll probably change my mind again at some point ;-)

This is the penultimate shot in this series, and out of interest: how far do you think it is from the wood to the water?

Here's number four in the series which was taken between the mooring points that you can see on the right hand side of Tuesday's shot.

In many ways I guess this is a companion to yesterday's entry, but this one is a shot of the side of the structure rather than one of the ends. And I guess I prefer this one. It's not quite so dramatic, but to me it's a more balanced shot.

Oh, and this is the 500th entry that has gone up on chromasia :-)

Last November I took a similar shot to this one that I promised to reshoot (though having looked at the previous one I'm not sure why), so here it is. Well, it's actually the opposite end of the pier, but they're pretty similar nonetheless.

On the whole, while I don't think this is as strong a shot as the previous two, I'm pleased with the way it turned out. I do have some reservations about my decision to go with a relatively restricted depth of field though. Specifically, was it a good idea to let the top of the structure drift out of focus or might it have been better to have used a smaller aperture? I don't know. On the whole I think it works, mostly, but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

This is a shot from on top of this structure and is where Paul and I were stood when we took the shot of the rather alien looking pier I put up the other day (it's 90 degrees to the right of this view).

Oh, and at the risk of boring people to death, this is the first of seven shots that feature this structure in one way or another; six are either views of the structure or views from it, and the seventh is an alternative view of the alien looking pier. The first five were taken when I was out with John the other afternoon and the last two are night shots, taken with Paul.

On another matter: if you haven't come across it yet go check out straymatter.com, particularly this shot.

I was going to continue posting my 'walk along the beach' shots today but I got a call from Paul yesterday evening saying he was on the beach and it was a glorious sunset. Anyway, by the time I got there the sun had set but we decided to go and do some more night photography of my favourite structure.

Unfortunately though the night looked as though it was going to be a washout as i) the moon didn't come up (I forgot to check the times, and when we tried ringing Bob to ask him we got an answer-machine), and ii) there was a lot of mist in the air (which equals lots of light pollution).

Anyway, we climbed up on top of the pier and took a few shots of the twilight (one of which I might post in a few days) but none of the other shots we tried worked out. In the end though, we both got a reasonable shot by turning around to shoot towards the shore.

As for this shot: it's the first of two that I'll put up. My wife prefers this one, while I like tomorrow's best, so as always I'd be interested to hear what you think. Paul's shot will be going up at about 12.10am tomorrow and I think this will be the url.

Update: following the first couple of comments I thought I'd clarify what this is. Many years ago, this structure (on which Paul and I are standing to take this shot) was part of St. Annes pier – the subject of this shot. But at some point the joining sections burnt down leaving the structure about 150 feet away from the end of the pier. So, last night we were stood on the former end of the pier photographing the current end of the pier.

I know I've put up a lot of shots of this structure in the last couple of weeks, but it continues to fascinate me, and while this isn't quite what I was after I'm quite pleased with the way it turned out – not least because I froze half to death taking it. There was a 10-mph wind blowing and it was about 3°C, so by the time I'd taken a few exposures I was really cold.

If I were to do this shot again (and I probably will) I would have gone for a longer exposure, mostly because I had no idea that the star trails would be this visible at six minutes. I don't know what I was expecting, but they did surprise me a bit. Also, this shot was about one stop under-exposed; i.e. it should have been a 12 minute exposure, but I miscalculated. I think something around a 48 minute exposure would be interesting, which, under the same lighting conditions as yesterday would mean an aperture of f/16. However, I think this would probably mess up the star trails so will probably need to re-shoot when there's less of a moon.

Oh, and hopefully this one will be a bit better received than yesterday's shot ;-)

I have a couple of other shots that are not too dissimilar to yesterday's entry, but I fancied a change today.

As for this shot: unlike the previous few, this is an attempt to capture the dullness of this season rather than its drama – looking out (in this instance, from St. Annes pier) onto a dull, grey day.

Oh, and my apologies for not responding in any detail to the many wonderful comments on yesterday's shot. The cold I had for a couple of weeks has now transferred itself to my wife and our youngest, both of whom are quite unwell.

On which note I'm going to go and tidy the kitchen :-/

Well, for the time being at least, this is the last shot of this structure that I'm going to put up. As I mentioned yesterday, I could quite happily go and photograph it every day, at least for a week or two, but I'll give it a miss for a while. One shot I would like to take in future though is a long exposure night shot, just as the tide is rising – that, I think, would be worth putting up.

Anyway, as for this shot: it was exposed for the sky and all I've really done to it is to increase the saturation and raise the foreground levels a bit. And in some ways I think this is my favourite of the four. Well, it's the most dramatic at least.

As always, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Oh, and this is another one that looks best against the 'dark' theme.

It's rare that I find an object that inspires two shots in a row, but this is the third shot I've put up of this structure and I have another one for tomorrow. I don't know what it is – maybe something to do with age, symmetry, that it's by the sea, I don't know – but I feel as though I could photograph aspects of this scene for weeks on end. But I won't – one more tomorrow (not dissimilar to the first one I put up) and then I'll stop :-)

Thanks to Roy's comment on yesterday's entry I now know (as with yesterday's shot) that this is a part of St. Anne's Pier that burnt down – reducing its overall length from 914' to 600'.

I also have another shot of this structure that I may well put up tomorrow. I'm pretty pleased with it, but on reflection I think the composition could have been a bit better so I may reshoot it tomorrow. That said, if it's as windy as it was today I probably won't bother – as I walked along the beach today the wind was so strong it felt as though it would take my legs out from under me. And interestingly, when we first moved here, I found the sea winds quite difficult to deal with for any length of time. Inland the wind seems much less constant – a gust, a lull, another gust, and so on – but when it's windy on the beach it's continuous. Having got used to it though I find it kind of reassuring – something to escape into perhaps.

Anyway, enough rambling – tell me what you think about this one. I like it.

Oh, and this one, IMO, looks better with the dark theme.

On my way home from work today I detoured via St. Annes and took a few shots of this structure. It's a hundred yards or so beyond the end of the pier and I presume it's some sort of mooring point. I'll probably try and go again tomorrow and see whether I can capture some of the details that I missed today – the wood, metalwork, and so on. I did take a few shots today but messed most of them up. This one though, I quite like.